PPP? You mean the pollsters that had Todd Akin as +1 over McCaskill after the stupid rape remarks, with an R+9 sample (triple the best R+ margin ever, and the first time I'd seen an R+ poll anywhere this election season), a result that encouraged Akin to stay in the race?

I think it says something about Republicans that they appreciate their sense of humor (they're frequently linked at conservative blogs), even though they may make fun of Republicans (along with Democrats).

I don't know if Dem blogs have such a sense of humor about their own candidates. Honestly, I don't know; maybe they do.

You know, garage mahal, the "Willard" is getting annoying. You're using it entirely because Romney doesn't, which is just infantile. It's exactly like calling Obama "Barry Hussein" every time you mention him. Technically correct, in that he's used his middle name publicly, and went by "Barry" for a time -- but there can be no possible point now except insult. So with "Willard."

I was only half-joking: rely on PPP if you like. That's your choice. I myself don't put much stock in them.

I don't trust any polls, and don't have to attribute bad faith to pollsters to distrust them. Even now that they're favoring Romney, I don't trust them. It's a notoriously uncertain and imprecise art/ science, a guessing game more than anything, this election season perhaps more than ever. I take only the roughest of trend-lines as potentially significant-- and then, only with a grain of salt.

I know which candidates I support in this election, who I think would make a better POTUS, who I hope will win. Who appears (or is reported by the MSM to appear) at any moment to be winning or losing in polls before the election doesn't make any difference to my decision.

So in that sense, polls are irrelevant to me-- though the drama they provide is somewhat irresistible, and of course when polls favor my side I am cheered. Why argue about what the polls say? Why bring them up all the time? How the hell do I know whether they're right or wrong? (After all, for all I know, they might turn out to be right by accident.)

I only thought it important to argue against them when one side (and a colluding MSM) was using the polls to push the idea of an inevitable victory for Obama. I considered much of that to be, let us say, not a matter of objective good faith reporting.

I'd rather argue about why or why not one should vote for one candidate over another. Insisting too much on polls (e.g. polls that show Obama winning) instead of providing any arguments why you think Obama should win... I'm not so interested in that game/ conversation. It's just partisans beating their chest and triumphantly yelping. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

(IMO that crosses the line into trollishness when it's a constant & concerted effort just to depress the other side; thinking of trolls on certain other blogs here.)

Those Ryan pic's are from 2011.... They were out takes from pictures they took of Ryan to go along with a profile they did on him...... A year later they publish the out takes, (pictures that they promise wouldn't be published) the day of the Vice Presidential debate .... Like I said dickheads... Always looking out for their comrades .

What has always been important about Ohio is that it is reflective of a delicate balance in the electorate nationwide. If that balance is distorted by a focused campaign, then it is no longer a bellwether because it no longer accurately reflects nationwide trends.